STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1. Misc. Application No.2364 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No.763 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus Mohkam Singh s/o Jai Singh, resident of Ward No.14, Behind Ladda Petrol Pump, Ellanabad, District Sirsa, Haryana. ..Respondent-Complainant
2. First Appeal No.765 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus Davinder Kumar s/o Late Shri Budh Ram, resident of House No.149, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh. First Appeal No.763 of 2017 ..Respondent-Complainant
3. Misc. Application No.2368 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No.766 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus Narinder Singh Bath s/o Kashmir Singh, resident of HIG 640-A, Phase-11, Mohali. ..Respondent-Complainant
4. Misc. Application No.2370 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No.767 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus First Appeal No.763 of 2017 Manjit Singh s/o Shaja Singh, resident of VPO Kumbrah, Sector 68, Mohali. ..Respondent-Complainant
5. First Appeal No.768 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus
1. Raghu Mohindru s/o Shri Anup Kumar Mohindru and
2. Sonia Mohindru w/o Shri Raghu Mohindru, Both residents of House No.668, Phase-7, Mohali. ..Respondents-Complainants
6. Misc. Application No.2374 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No.769 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties First Appeal No.763 of 2017 Versus Kulwinder Singh s/o Khar Singh, resident of Khizarbad, Tehsil and District Mohali, Punjab. ..Respondent-Complainant
7. Misc. Application No.2376 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No.770 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus Gursewak Singh s/o Shri Sadhu Singh, resident of Maholi Kalan, District Sangrur, Punjab. ..Respondent-Complainant
8. Misc. Application No.2378 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No.771 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. First Appeal No.763 of 2017 .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus Rajesh Kumar s/o Shri Ramchander, Resident of House No.480, Sector 4, Kurukshetra, Haryana. ..Respondent-Complainant
9. Misc. Application No.2380 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No.772 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus Satyawan s/o Jit Singh, resident of House No.2099, Sector 52, Chandigarh. ..Respondent-Complainant First Appeals against the different orders dated 29.8.2017 and 27.9.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali). Quorum:- Honble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:- For the appellants : Shri Manoj Vashistha, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT: All the above mentioned 9 First Appeals have been preferred against the different orders dated 29.8.2017 and 27.9.2017 passed First Appeal No.763 of 2017 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali) (in short, District Forum) and are being decided by this common order, as common questions of law and facts, except some minor variations, here and there, are involved in these First Appeals. The facts are taken from First Appeal No.763 of 2017. Along with this appeal an application for condonation of delay of 38 days has also been filed.
2. It would be apposite to mention at the outset that hereinafter the parties will be referred as have been arrayed before the District Forum. M.A. No.2364 of 2017:
3. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal.
4. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal. Facts of the Complaint:
5. Brief facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased one BHK BR No.1623, Khata Number Sunny Khasra Number Apartment of Village F21, Mohali, Sector 74A, 117 measuring 450 square feet (approximately) for a total consideration of 12,50,100/- from the opposite parties, vide Agreement to Sell dated 27.8.2012. The complainant had paid a total sum of 7,92,500/- through instalments to the opposite parties. The remaining instalment was to be paid at the time of possession of the flat. At the time of execution of the Agreement to Sell, the opposite parties had assured that the possession of the apartment shall be First Appeal No.763 of 2017 handed over to the complainant on 3.12.2012, which was extended to 10.4.2013 by the opposite parties. Till date no building has been erected qua the apartment nor there is any construction work going on at the site. The opposite parties were extending the time on one pretext or the other. Failing to get any authentic response from the opposite parties the complainant got issued legal notice dated 10.2.2016 but no response has been received from the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint for issuance of directions to the opposite parties to either hand over possession of the flat or to refund the deposited amount of 7,92,500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the dates of payment till realization and 80,000/- as litigation expenses along with adequate compensation for harassment. Defence of the opposite parties:
6. In the reply the opposite parties took preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant has committed default in making payment of instalments. As per Agreement, the amount deposited by the complainant is liable to be forfeited. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the complaint. Approvals of the project are under process and it will take time for getting the approval and handing over the possession of the flat. LOI was received by the opposite parties from the GMADA on 19.5.2014. The complainant had paid only 7,92,500/- out of 12,52,000/- and as per the terms of the agreement, the amount of biana is liable to be forfeited. On merits, denying all the averments First Appeal No.763 of 2017 made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. Finding of the District Forum:
7. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide order dated 29.8.2017 with the following directions to the opposite parties:- (a) to refund the deposited amount of 7,92,500/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the different dates of deposit of different amounts till the date of actual refund. (b) to pay to the complainant compensation of 25,000/- on account of mental agony due to the negligent act of the opposite party; and (c) to pay 10,000/-, as litigation costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite parties for setting aside the impugned order.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. Contentions of the Parties:
9. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the District Forum committed an illegality while allowing the complaint by ignoring the evidence produced on the record; from which it stands proved that the complainant himself was at fault in not depositing the instalments as per the Payment Schedule. First Appeal No.763 of 2017 Therefore, it cannot be held that there was any deficiency in service or that it adopted unfair trade practice. The fault, if any, was on the part of the complainant, who failed to deposit all the instalments as per Agreement. He prayed that the order passed by the District Forum is illegal and erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. Consideration of Contentions:
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties before us.
11. At the outset it is pertinent to mention that identical matters have already been decided by this Commission in the following cases:
i) Consumer Complaint No.211 of 2015 (Manjit Singh (since deceased) through his LRs v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 16.3.2017; ii) Consumer Complaint No.288 of 2016 (Gagandeep Singh v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. and anr.) decided on 2.3.2017; iii) Consumer Complaint No.240 of 2016 (Sneh Sood v. M/s Bajwa Devlopers Ltd.) decided on 23.2.2017; iv) Consumer Complaint No.188 of 2016 (Amarjit Singh v. J.S. Bajwa, Managing Director, M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. and anr.) decided on 23.2.2017;
v) Consumer Complaint No.203 of 2016 (Kuldeep Sharma v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. and anr.) decided on 26.7.2017; First Appeal No.763 of 2017 vi) Consumer Complaint No.9 of 2017 (Ajay Sharma and another v. Bajwa Developers Ltd. and anr.) decided on 23.8.2017; vii) Consumer Complaint No.10 of 2017 (Rajnish Sood v. Bajwa Developers Ltd. and anr.) decided on 23.8.2017; viii) Consumer Complaint No.301 of 2016 (Surinder Pal Singh vs. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. and another) decided on 4.10.2017; ix) Consumer Complaint No.43 of 2017 (Amit Baddhan v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 3.10.2017;
x) First Appeal No.753 of 2016 (M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. v. Dr. Manjit Kaur Sharma) decided on 22.2.2017; xi) First Appeal No.754 of 2016 (M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. v. Pooja Khanna) decided on 22.2.2017; xii) First Appeal No.755 of 2016 (M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. v. Rajan Vashishat) decided on 22.2.2017; xiii) First Appeal No.860 of 2016 (Keshav Kumar v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 11.4.2017; xiv) First Appeal No.861 of 2016 (Harleen Kaur v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 11.4.2017; xv) First Appeal No.862 of 2016 (Gurdev Kaur v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 11.4.2017; xvi) First Appeal No.863 of 2016 (Sarabjit Kaur v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 11.4.2017; xvii) First Appeal No.922 of 2016 (Amit Kumar v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 11.4.2017; and First Appeal No.763 of 2017 xviii) First Appeal No.923 of 2016 (Devraj Chandel v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 11.4.2017.
12. The matter in the present appeals is squarely covered by the orders passed in above said cases, so we intend to decide the present appeals in view of orders passed in above said cases.
13. According to the complainant, he purchased the flat in question from the opposite parties for a total sale consideration of 12,50,100/- and paid a sum of 7,92,500/- in all. The payment so made by the complainant has been admitted by the opposite parties in their written statement. The possession of the flat, complete in all respects, was to be delivered to the complainant upto 3.12.2012, which was extended to 10.1.2013 by the opposite parties. Since there was no development at the site and there was no possibility of completion of the project or delivery of possession of the flat in question in near future, therefore, the complainant stopped making further payments. Thereafter he served legal notice upon the opposite parties for the refund of the deposited amount.
14. The opposite parties have not annexed any document showing ownership of the property over which the project was to be established nor the sanction of the competent authority with respect to the land has been annexed on record. It appears that without owning the property, the flats in the said project were sold, which is a clear unfair trade practice and sheer violation of PAPRA.
15. The amount has been utilized by the opposite parties, which is trust money, for earning profits in their business. However, the complainant was ready to pay the remaining instalments but there First Appeal No.763 of 2017 was no development at the site. There is no fun in first paying the instalments and thereafter seeking refund of the same. Since there was no development at the site, therefore, the complainant was well within his rights not to pay further instalments. The opposite parties have also violated the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, PAPRA) by not obtaining the necessary sanctions/permissions from the competent authority before launching the scheme and collecting money from the people. Even the land was also not in their name when the project was launched. Therefore, the opposite parties violated Sections 3, 5, 9 and 12 of PAPRA.
16. The opposite parties had been collecting huge amounts from the buyers for the development of the Project. The amount received from the complainant-buyer was required to be deposited in the schedule Bank, as per section 9 of papra and we wonder where that amount had been going. They are not to play the game at the cost of others. When they insist upon the performance of the promise by the consumers, they are to be bound by the reciprocal promises of performing their part of the Agreement.
17. By executing the Agreement to Sell Ex.C-1 and receiving the amount more than 25,000/- the opposite parties violated the provisions of PAPRA. They were not competent to execute the Agreement in respect of the flat and to receive different amounts. These acts on the part of the opposite parties amount to adoption of unfair trade practice. In these circumstances the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount so paid by him. The opposite First Appeal No.763 of 2017 parties cannot withhold his amount and are liable to refund the same along with interest.
18. The C.P. Act came into being in the year 1986. It is one of the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. There is not an iota of evidence led by the opposite parties to rebut the averments made in the complaint by way of authenticated documentary evidence. The complainant has made payment of substantial amount to the opposite parties with the hope to get the possession of the flat in a reasonable time. The circumstances clearly show that the opposite parties made false statement of facts about the goods and services
i.e. allotment of land and construction in a stipulated period and ultimate delivery of possession. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainant. Had the complainant not invested his money with the opposite parties, he would have invested the same elsewhere. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The complainant has suffered loss, as discussed above. The builder is under obligation to deliver the possession of the flat within a reasonable period. The complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely to get possession of the flat booked. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that the opposite parties i.e. builder knew from the very beginning that they had not complied with the provisions of the PAPRA and the Rules framed thereunder and First Appeal No.763 of 2017 would not be able to deliver the possession within the stipulated period, thus by misrepresenting induced the complainant to book the flat, due to which the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. It is the settled principle of law that compensation should be commensurate with the loss suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. The amount paid by the complainant is a deposit held by the opposite parties in trust of complainant and it should be used for the purpose of constructing the flats, as mentioned in section 9 of papra. The builder is bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant for failure to deliver the possession, so has been held in catena of judgments by the Honble Supreme Court and the Honble National Commission.
19. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
20. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.763 of 2017 First Appeal No.765 of 2017:
21. In this case the complainant booked 1 BHK Flat No.BR(356) 1356 measuring 450 square feet, in F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,000/- and paid a total sum of 6,88,000/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
22. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.765 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine.
23. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.766 of 2017: M.A. No.2368 of 2017:
24. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal. First Appeal No.763 of 2017
25. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal. Main Case:
26. In this case the complainant booked 1 BHK Flat No.BR No.1234, measuring 450 square feet, Khata Number Sunny Khasra Number Apartment of Village F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,100/- and paid a total sum of 5,00,300/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
27. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.766 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine.
28. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.763 of 2017 First Appeal No.767 of 2017: M.A. No.2370 of 2017:
29. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal.
30. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal. Main Case:
31. In this case the complainant booked 1 BHK BR No.1235, measuring 450 square feet , Khata Number Sunny Khasra Number Apartment of Village F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,000/- and paid a total sum of 5,00,300/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
32. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.767 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine.
33. The appellant/opposite party had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may First Appeal No.763 of 2017 approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.768 of 2017:
34. In this case the complainant booked one flat 1 BHK 18/9 measuring 450 square feet in F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,150/- (rounded off to 12,00,000/-) and paid a total sum of 3,00,000/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
35. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.768 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine.
36. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainants may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.763 of 2017 First Appeal No.769 of 2017: M.A. No.2374 of 2017:
37. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal.
38. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal. Main Case:
39. In this case the complainant booked one BHK BR No.1614, measuring 450 square feet in Khata Number Sunny Khasra Number Apartment of Village F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,150/- and paid a total sum of 8,40,000/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
40. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.769 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine.
41. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above First Appeal No.763 of 2017 amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.770 of 2017: M.A. No.2376 of 2017:
42. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal.
43. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal. Main Case:
44. In this case the complainant booked one BHK BR No.1232, measuring 450 square feet in Khata Number Sunny Khasra Number Apartment of Village F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,100/- and paid a total sum of 10,63,700/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
45. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.770 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine.
46. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the First Appeal No.763 of 2017 sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.771 of 2017: M.A. No.2378 of 2017:
47. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal.
48. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal. Main Case:
49. In this case the complainant booked one BHK BR No.1863, measuring 450 square feet in Khata Number Sunny Khasra Number Apartment of Village F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,150/- and paid a total sum of 6,70,000/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
50. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.771 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine.
51. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with First Appeal No.763 of 2017 interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.772 of 2017: M.A. No.2380 of 2017:
52. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal.
53. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal. Main Case:
54. In this case the complainant booked one BHK BR No.1230, measuring 450 square feet in Khata Number Sunny Khasra Number Apartment of Village F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,100/- and paid a total sum of 5,00,300/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
55. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.772 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine. First Appeal No.763 of 2017
56. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER November 17, 2017 Bansal
Comments